The Climate Science Nepotism Awards Racket – thanks to @AGU

If you have been following the climate debate for any length of time, you’ve probably noticed that a select few individuals seems to be the major drivers behind alarm, and alarming news stories. Some of that was on display when we witnessed the behind the scenes workings thanks to Climategate, but this is far more out in the open, and aided by the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

What a small circle of “friends” they have to choose from. I wonder who on that list will get the nod next?

Pretty soon, they are going to run out of “qualified” candidates. That’s when they’ll start bottom feeding for people like John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, and the worst bottom feeder of them all “Sou/Hotwhopper” aka Miriam O’Brien.

Curious: Actually in your humor, which I quite enjoyed, is a kernel of truth (the best humor has this). One should always give ideas a critical look to see how well they stand up. Question the proponent to gauge his understanding and ability to express the idea and deal with criticisms. Were I to ask you to make the case you espouse, how would you requit yourself. Would it just be an appeal to authority or do you actually understand the notion. To not do the due diligence ranks you in a very large horde.

Moreover, in this case your mocking would be being disrespectful to the few brave scientifically literate ones that do challenge! Dissidents in the Soviet Union who questioned the system numbered a very view and paid very dearly. It’s the few that protect that right. Mobbery is easy.

For what little I know about AGU at least their leaders don’t really sound very humble. My guess is that besides the awards committee that most of those at the top belong to a select clic who all think and believe exactly the same way. I will bet that communicate with each other “at least causally” at least once a week. While they claim to promote ethics it would appear ethics are only how they define them not by any real objective standard. I find it interesting that the AGU executive director is not a geophysical scientists but originally according to her bio came out of the health care lobbying industry. Very Strange for a professional organization. I guess the membership or board don’t believe in those in the AG field are capable of running such an organization.

Health care is the model of corruption used in climate. What you at WUWT is that without studying medicine discourse and definitely proven medical consensus that keeps changing, you cannot see a general pattern much larger that climate and biology.

PS,
Those graphs, limited in time as they are, can be interpreted as having jumps between steadier states. The post 2000 group is possibly different to the 1980-2000 group, with different intensities of some controlling parameters.
If this is so, it is wrong to use a standard deviation envelope over the lot, as is currently done. Statistics sample a larger population. Here, there is emerging evidence of 2 or more populations being wrongly treated as one. That is, wrongly for some purposes, not necessarily wrong for all. Possibly wrong when the aim is to create alarm, because the definition of “normal range” changes. Geoff

Washington (CNN) – William Happer, a Princeton atomic physicist and prominent skeptic questioning whether humans are causing rapid climate change, is joining the National Security Council as senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials.

The prize was established in 2011 to highlight the importance of promoting scientific literacy, clarity of message, and efforts to foster respected and understanding of science-based values as they relate to the implications of climate change.

“Promoting scientific literacy”, ……………….. excuse me, while I have a laughing fit …

Janice probably took up living in a cave somewhere, in order to dissociate herself from the catastrophic demise of sanity today. Jimbo is probably busy amassing arms and survival supplies for the coming fall of Western civilization.

… just a guess — I never was around, I don’t think, when these folks were commenting.

As for posting videos, alas, I’m not sure how to do that in the new WUWT domain thing. I know I can post a link to a video, but embedding an actual video directly seems to be a no go these days.

RACookPE1978,
My suspicion is that there are fewer of them than what it appears. Some I have encountered on Yahoo seem to have similar writing styles and vocabularies. They are using multiple pseudonyms, hence, fewer have to be paid.

In the publishing business, this is called “log rolling”, i.e., author 1 writes blurb for author 2, who writes blurb for author 1, etc. Repeat as needed.

I grew up in the country. Nice spot, but hard to handle a summer of fun where the only kids were my brother and my cousin. Nevertheless, we set up a spy agency where (being oldest) I was the Boss. Also the Chief Engineer, Head Spy, Chief Coder (and Code Breaker). And I think I was a guard in the prison.

Then again, I was 8, and not a highly respected adult in climate science…

LOL @ Eschenbach. The hockey stick is alive and well and living in the real world. It’s been confirmed over and over again. The only place it’s “dead” is in WUWT-land, and the rest of The D Nile Sphere. If you think your post on a blog will “kill” it, it might be that YOU need resuscitation.

1) You used the word “resuscitate.” If it won’t die, there’d be no need to resuscitate it.
…
PS, it’s not about errors….it’s about all the subsequent studies using different proxies and different statistical methods that have confirmed the original work.

And yet, you continue to beat this dead horse without one ounce of substance, yet argue semantics of what the word ‘resuscitate’ means.
But please, go on – you can’t prove my point any better than by continuing to talk.

Does the name Steve McIntyre mean anything to you, David? With Ross McKitrick he has published work that utterly destroyed the Hockey stick in all its manifestations. Meaning each and every one of them.

Steve M’s blog posts demonstrate a litany of incompetence and dishonesty in the paleo-T community.

Show me the physical theory that converts a tree-ring metric into a physical temperature. When you do that, you’ll have a case that paleo-T reconstructions are part of science. Until then, you’re in unicorn-land.

You obviously did not look carefully at Steve McI’s site. He published a reply to Huybers, et al. He also showed that Wahl and Amman’s results actually confirmed McIntyre and McKitrick, except that W&A misrepresented that in their paper.

Here’s another basic pointer for you, David: people who argue ‘ha-ha-ha-peer-reviewed’ don’t know anything about scientific argument and also don’t know what they’re talking about.

Here is my blog-post on the crock that is proxy paleo-T reconstructions. Let’s see you refute word one of it.

Frank, you miss the forest for the trees. Please address the dozen+ reconstructions subsequent to MBH98 that corroborate it. If you are unable to do so, then please give me a link to an accepted reconstruction that *PROVES* Mann wrong.

I believe the point is that these reconstructions continue to use the same proxies that have been shown to be poor proxies. If you continue to use the same bad data to “corroborate” a result that was based on those bad proxies to begin with, you have not demonstrated anything.

Pat,
I think that we need to focus more on the idea that those who insist that only peer-reviewed work is science, and thus appeal to authority, are intrinsically anti-science. That is, those who reject the Scientific Method, in favor of authoritarian dogma, are the real science deniers.

I feel as though I have gone back in time, reliving the death of this line of discussion over and over again, where I pointed out places where McKitric and McIntyre thoroughly answered Huybers 2005 or pointed to the questionable integrity of the Wahl & Ammann 2007 paper, and where I pointed out the utter ridiculousness of equating all blogs to “aliens-live-among-us” blogs.

It also showed that his reconstruction failed verification and that he knew it and published anyway. Mann’s global T was really just a single bristle-cone pine series from the White Mountains that his fake method promoted into significance.

The so-called conformation studies relied on a single series from a tree in Yamal that had a hockey stick shape; others used a Tiljander lake varve series that was inverted to produce a hockey stick shape.

The whole field is a crock.

This is all tediously familiar to most of us here. Then some hot jonny-come-lately (you) drops in and, in his ignorance, resurrects the HS zombie yet one more time.

David, why don’t you show with references and logical explanation how each of the dozens of papers confirming Mann’s hockey stick graph use different proxies and statistical methods. Right now you look like a bot just repeating your same line like a parrot.

David, it’s not very brave or rewarding simply to appeal to authority for your beliefs and to mock those few who examine and criticize. Being a non scientist from the sociology /polisci field is not an excuse for not doing a due diligence on the subject, especially with the enormous negative ramifications for the world economy and its already put upon poor denizens that policy prescriptions burden. These are on your professional beat or what good are you to anyone?

What we need is for these buffoons to be compelled to defend their claims of an absurdly high ECS using only the laws of physics and get it on video.

I can guarantee with absolute certainty that if they had to answer to my concerns about the many violations of first principles physics required to support their position, they will look like fools as their delusional illusion implodes around them. I’m equally certain that there are many others here who could also make them look incredibly foolish through many lines of questioning.

The problem is that they refuse to debate, Schmidt technically reports to Trump who should order him to support his claims or be fired if he refuses.

In Texas with a serious border crime problem this was just the headline–“Suspected illegal aliens kill Refugio tracking dogs.” Ok, innocent until proven guilty, but I don’t think this is what AAAS has in mind. Or is it?

I note the warning on the site to nominators and nominees to refrain from constant calling or…er…communicating with the panel members that make the selection!!!! S’Truth, these people are smaller minded and more dishonest than I could have thought. What really is rich is the threat made that the panel is obliged to report excessive contacting of the panel to the AGU Ethics officer the redoubtable Peter Gleick, who, after his felonious misrepresentation forgery and info theft re Heartland, was given an award by someone or other. Turney of the Antarctica ‘Ship of Fools’ was also given an award after his reckless, costly,dangerous voyage and expensive rescue from being trapped in the ice with women and children in a cold blizzard.

This cheapening of awards, including the Nobel Prize itself, began at the public school level a couple of generations ago when they discriminated against the smart kids by burying their achievements under truckloads of other ridiculous awards and trophies handed out to everyone in the class. A trophy for participation (man I remember the kind of award meted out to those who didnt participate in school in the 1940s)! Kids all know who the smart ones are anyway. Next was to gut the curriculum so, indeed, smart and the slow could get A’s with no problem. The product is the shallowness of scholarship we see today. The smart ones are still there but it’s hard to get a seat on the bus.

I seem to remember a Climategate exchange of e-mails where Mann and Jones discuss reciprocal recommendations to Science honors in their respective countries. (Wasn’t Royal Society something that Mike desired?)

I tried a quick web search and found nothing, but I’m relatively sure my memory is correct.

“The Council of the Royal Society is a collection of men who elect each other to office and then dine together at the expense of this society to praise each other over wine and give each other medals.”

I saw this coming, so this is why I resigned from being and AGU-member publically, long ago. And also, of course AGU’s political, and un-necessary climate statement made by the selct few on the top, on behalf of all their members.

Awards seem to be an important part of any green/climate program. I recently visited a web site run by a group working towards “energy sovereignty” (whatever that is) for their town by 2022. I spoke to them a year ago asking what their plan was to achieve their goals in that timescale and the response I got back infered I was just being negative. I revisited to see whats happening and on the news page there is an award being handed out to a community member, and awards being collected by the program leaders but nothing about what’s actually happening. As they say, its about the journey (and the awards) rather than the destination.

The need to circle the wagons seen in this approach, is one of defence .
But defence from what, is the question . And in this case its seems defence from views that those inside find a challenge. And we find ourselves once again asking why is critical review given its central role in normal scientific practice , so very unwelcome in climate ‘science ‘ and question even more perplexing given the claims of ‘settled science ‘ which should easily equip the area to deal with such a challenge.

MarkW,
Not unlike the inverse correlation between the quality of a movie and the amount of pre-release advertising on TV. If they know it is going to be a stinker, they invest more money in promoting it.

This is truly comical. The sniveling weasel himself is one of the worst communicators in the climate fakery field. Remember when college professors and academics were distinguished and erudite? Mann looks like the restroom attendant in a freshman “animal house” dorm

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy